Oscar Cliffs Notes.

[one_11]

OK, so I've been using my WGA card to full advatage and scoping as many Oscar-nominated films as possible over the last few weeks -- for free! And thank God they were free, because lemme tell you, overall I'm far less impressed than I thought I would be. I can't remember an Oscar season when so many movies got such great buzz AS "SERIOUS films"

Comments

[one_11]

Well, I'll agree with Peter, and some extent broncochick, that it walks a fine line.

But in your last points, bronco, you don't address my point #3, which I think is what really absolves the filmmakers of what you call "equivocation." When the daughter starts doing that dance, the family is rightly shocked. As are we, the audience -- it's a very edgy and dangerous moment in the film, and I think the filmmakers intended it to be that way. There's no question that the girl has been expolited by her grandfather and that this is not a good thing. But then the family decides to band together and turn this moment into a celebration of themselves and the daughter, and a thumbing of their noses at the pageant (representing everything that's kept the family from being a family -- concepts of "winning" and "beauty" that Pete mentions).

The fimmakers aren't endorsing grandpa's actions, they're endorsing the rest of the family's.

And yes, the grandpa gets off lighter because you get to know him as a character, good side and bad. But I have no problem with that. In this it's similar to, say, the movie "Quiz Show," the point of which is also that flawed people (and we are all flawed, aren't we?) do indeed commit immoral acts when they're put in a position to do so by a society that in many ways sets them up for a fall. That kind of society, those insane norms, are indeed more worthy of scorn -- and Grandpa, an obviously flawed human being, more worthy of forgiveness.

But that doesn't mean it's some kind of endorsement of sexing up your granddaughter.

riposte!

[broncochick]

Reinforcement is not endorsement. I see the film as passively reinforcing the current paradigm.

In terms of #3 I agree with you, the family does rally around the little girl and the moment is saved AND transformed. However, that is also the problem with the film! Because the moment is transformed and rendered positive, we can feel more forgiving of the grandfather. That dance, rather than be a source of shame, becomes a catalyst of sorts. Everyone--the little girl, her brother, the entire family, the viewer... shit- even dead grandpa! -- is empowered by the experience. But, you know what? There are no saviours in real life. Had the movie ended without that transformative moment, grandpa would have been dubbed a predator. But the movie did not end tragically, it ended with redemption. Does that mean I should judge him less? Nope. Grandpa is a sleazeball and Olive is a victim.

And yes, we are all flawed and nut flavoured. However, nutty and all, we alll have the responsibility to limit the amount of harm we do to others, especially when kids are involved.

ps: i'm practicing my british spelling just in case i become a landed alien--er, immigrant--in canadadadadadada!

Re: riposte!

[one_11]

All well put, but here's where I submit we henceforth agree to disagree -- I think the character is not a mere "sleazeball." He's a lot more complicated than that.

But British spelling? On this issue we stand as one! Show your soon-to-be Canadian colours, sister!

[broncochick]

That was fun!

[one_11]

I was a film studies major.

[broncochick]

Aha! Therein lies el probleeeemmmmoooo! ;)

I was, let's see, AB in Anthropology and an MAT in English/Comp Lit.